Here is the authors point in a MSNBC article. Biocentrism: How life Creates the universe The article summarizes the authors point accurately. I read the book and found it engaging and makes a similar point as the book Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness. I read this book as well, and although the books approach the subject from a somewhat different angles the basic point is that consciousness is fundamental to everything and that nothing exists without it. If these ideas represent reality then it will mean a major change in how we view science and biology.

Can you be more specific? How did you view science and biology before and after you read the book? How exactly did the book effect that change? It always bothers me when someone ends their piece with a statement like this when it should be the beginning of a discussion.

On the other hand, this thread will make a major change in how we view this issue.

quote:What we perceive as reality is a process that involves our consciousness. An "external" reality, if it existed, would by definition have to exist in space. But this is meaningless, because space and time are not absolute realities but rather tools of the human and animal mind.Our external and internal perceptions are inextricably intertwined. They are different sides of the same coin and cannot be divorced from one another.The behavior of subatomic particles, indeed all particles and objects, is inextricably linked to the presence of an observer. Without the presence of a conscious observer, they at best exist in an undetermined state of probability waves.Without consciousness, "matter" dwells in an undetermined state of probability. Any universe that could have preceded consciousness only existed in a probability state.The structure of the universe is explainable only through biocentrism. The universe is fine-tuned for life, which makes perfect sense as life creates the universe, not the other way around. The "universe" is simply the complete spatio-temporal logic of the self.Time does not have a real existence outside of animal-sense perception. It is the process by which we perceive changes in the universe.Space, like time, is not an object or a thing. Space is another form of our animal understanding and does not have an independent reality. We carry space and time around with us like turtles with shells. Thus, there is no absolute self-existing matrix in which physical events occur independent of life.

Can you be more specific? How did you view science and biology before and after you read the book? How exactly did the book effect that change? It always bothers me when someone ends their piece with a statement like this when it should be the beginning of a discussion.

Science assumes that life grew as a result of atoms combining in a manner that created life from a pre-existing universe. This theory assumes that the universe only exists because it is perceived by a pre-existing consciousness. If this theory is correct scientists are going to have to consider an entirely different set of parameters in looking for a GUT if nothing else.

quote:For centuries, scientists regarded Berkeley’s argument as a philosophical sideshow and continued to build physical models based on the assumption of a separate universe “out there” into which we have each individually arrived. These models presume the existence of one essential reality that prevails with us or without us. Yet since the 1920s, quantum physics experiments have routinely shown the opposite: Results do depend on whether anyone is observing. This is perhaps most vividly illustrated by the famous two-slit experiment. When someone watches a subatomic particle or a bit of light pass through the slits, the particle behaves like a bullet, passing through one hole or the other. But if no one observes the particle, it exhibits the behavior of a wave that can inhabit all possibilities—including somehow passing through both holes at the same time.

Some of the greatest physicists have described these results as so confounding they are impossible to comprehend fully, beyond the reach of metaphor, visualization, and language itself. But there is another interpretation that makes them sensible. Instead of assuming a reality that predates life and even creates it, we propose a biocentric picture of reality. From this point of view, life—particularly consciousness—creates the universe, and the universe could not exist without us

This is the problem with philosophers. They extrapolate to extremes where the underlying phenomenon has no voice.

This is a gross misinterpretation and misuse of Heisenberg/Bohr and the Copenhagen Interpretation.

QM does not say that particles (or moons or suns or universes) do not exist until they are observed, but that the wide probabilities of a particle's states are its reality until specific values are observed (collapse of the wave function).

Feynman's Sum-Over-Histories is an excellent tool here. For any particle every possible state must be considered even though the probability of that possibility is vanishingly small. The probability sum of those possibilities is the reality of the particle. For single particles this probability function will be spread giving rise to Heisenberg's uncertainty in position-v-momentum or energy-v-time. As particles aggregate, however, the sums peak in sharper relief and the uncertainty becomes less to the point that the aggregated object mimics the certainty of classical mechanics (the “correspondence principle” of Copenhagen).

Whether there were eyes to see it or not, the moon, the sun, the universe (as an aggregate of particles) existed in a certain location at a certain time with a certain set of attributes.

This “it ain't there till ya see it” is bogus and any philosophy based on this is bogus.

I don't pretend to have the knowledge to debate this myself so I have to rely on what I read. Here is a porton of an interview given by Roger Penrose some time ago.

quote:Roger Penrose : Yes I think physicists would agree that the feeling of time passing is simply an illusion, something that is not real. It has something to do with our perceptions.

Narrator : Illusion or not, our perceptions emerge somewhere between the cosmic scale of Relativity where the flow of time is frozen and the quantum scale, where flow descends to uncertainty.Our world is on a scale governed by a mixture of chance and necessity.

Roger Penrose : My view is that there is some large scale quantum activity going on in the brain.Physics does not say that Quantum Mechanics takes place in small areas, but also take place over larger areas. I think this has to do with the consciousness. I think we need a new way to look at time, not either Quantum Mechanics or Relativity.

Narrator : If Quantum Mechanics is taking place in the brain then the same randomness of outcome and unpredictability might explain our ability to make sometime random choices. Opening up the future to the possibility of change would provide the first step of restoring to physics the flow of time it currently denies.

Physicist : I don't think time flows, I feel that time flows, but I feel we can only understand this if we have a better understanding of how consciousness works. I think human consciousness probably has the secrets as to how and why we think of time as going by.

Roger Penrose : I don't think we have the tools, I don't think we have the physical picture to accommodate these things yet. We're not very close to it.

Here is a porton of an interview given by Roger Penrose some time ago.

What Roger is talking about here is much more reasonable than the above comments regarding the double-slit and "spookiness". While I don't necessarily agree with Roger's more specific ideas about conciousness and quantum behaviour, there is almosrt certainly some intrinsic link relating back to his points here regarding the nature of time.

There is an obvious biocentricity arising in the fact that the perceived world is not the real world. At the trivial end is the nature of colour. At the deep end, there is the nature of space, location and distance. All of these, in the normal understanding, seem to arise as a result of perception. Whatever it is that "falls" in the "woods" when no-one is there, it is nothing that we would recognise

...since the 1920s, quantum physics experiments have routinely shown the opposite: Results do depend on whether anyone is observing. This is perhaps most vividly illustrated by the famous two-slit experiment. When someone watches a subatomic particle or a bit of light pass through the slits, the particle behaves like a bullet, passing through one hole or the other. But if no one observes the particle, it exhibits the behavior of a wave that can inhabit all possibilities—including somehow passing through both holes at the same time.

[/quote]

That's really, really bad. The "double slit" experiment shows particle-like behaviour when one slit is open and wave-like behaviour when both are open, not depending on whether someone is watching he slits. In fact there have been no QM experiments which show that the presence or a conscious observer has any effect at all.

So all we have is philosophical speculation (to be kind) - and a major misunderstanding of what experiment has actually shown.

That's really, really bad. The "double slit" experiment shows particle-like behaviour when one slit is open and wave-like behaviour when both are open, not depending on whether someone is watching he slits

As I understand it the important elements of the double slit experiment in terms of QM doesn't simply depend on there being one or two slits. If a measurement is made to determine which slit the particle passed through then the interference pattern vanishes. I agree that a conscious observe is not necessarily part of the equation but 'watching the slits', or any other way of determining which-way information, does remove the interference pattern.

That's really, really bad. The "double slit" experiment shows particle-like behaviour when one slit is open and wave-like behaviour when both are open, not depending on whether someone is watching he slits.

You missed the target by a mile with that statement.

In fact there have been no QM experiments which show that the presence or a conscious observer has any effect at all.

If you don't read about them, you won't hear about it. Have you seen the delayed choice experiment or the one done with the eraser?

So all we have is philosophical speculation (to be kind) - and a major misunderstanding of what experiment has actually shown.

Great that we have someone who at last understands quantum mechanics, because on the whole it is still a very poorly understood theory ontolgy-wise.